Large variation in MRSA policies, procedures and prevalence in English intensive care units: a questionnaire analysis

A new approach to Vancomycin utilization evaluation: A cross-sectional study in intensive care unit

Objective:

The risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is increasing in recent years with high rate of morbidity and mortality. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the rationale use of vancomycin in ICU patients.

Methods:

A total of 200 patients who received at least 48 h intravenous vancomycin were randomly selected from ICU wards, during 9 months. Vancomycin administration and related clinical and laboratory data were gathered from patients' charts and health information system to evaluate the appropriateness of different aspects of vancomycin use during all days which vancomycin were ordered.

Findings:

During the study, 15,230 ± 1216 mg (mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM]) vancomycin was administered for 200 patients in the mean period of 9.79 ± 0.64 (SEM) days of ICU stay, for prophylaxis and empiric therapy. Results showed the appropriateness of vancomycin uses were 30.5%, 9%, and 5.5% in the first 24 h, after 72 h and during the whole time of treatment, respectively. In addition, infectious consultation was the only significantly different parameter between appropriate and inappropriate vancomycin administration groups (P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Although vancomycin utilization evaluation were mentioned in previous studies, but data related to ICU patients and during all days of vancomycin therapy are limited. High prevalence of inappropriate use of vancomycin in ICU is alarming for health systems and necessitates implementation of antibiotic policies.

Gloves, gowns and masks for reducing the transmission of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the hospital setting

BACKGROUND

Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA; also known as methicillin-resistant S aureus) is a common hospital-acquired pathogen that increases morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Its control continues to be an unresolved issue in many hospitals worldwide. The evidence base for the effects of the use of gloves, gowns or masks as control measures for MRSA is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of wearing gloves, a gown or a mask when contact is anticipated with a hospitalised patient colonised or infected with MRSA, or with the patient's immediate environment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Specialised Registers of three Cochrane Groups (Wounds Group on 5 June 2015; Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group on 9 July 2013; and Infectious Diseases Group on 5 January 2009); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6); DARE, HTA, NHS EED, and the Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6); MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (1946 to June week 1 2015); EMBASE (1974 to 4 June 2015); Web of Science (WOS) Core Collection (from inception to 7 June 2015); CINAHL (1982 to 5 June 2015); British Nursing Index (1985 to 6 July 2010); and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database (1639 to 11 June 2015). We also searched three trials registers (on 6 June 2015), references list of articles, and conference proceedings. We finally contacted relevant individuals for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies assessing the effects on MRSA transmission of the use of gloves, gowns or masks by any person in the hospital setting when contact is anticipated with a hospitalised patient colonised or infected with MRSA, or with the patient's immediate environment. We did not assess adverse effects or economic issues associated with these interventions.We considered any comparator to be eligible. With regard to study design, only randomised controlled trials (clustered or not) and the following non-randomised experimental studies were eligible: quasi-randomised controlled trials (clustered or not), non-randomised controlled trials (clustered or not), controlled before-and-after studies, controlled cohort before-after studies, interrupted time series studies (controlled or not), and repeated measures studies. We did not exclude any study on the basis of language or date of publication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently decided on eligibility of the studies. Had any study having been included, two review authors would have extracted data (at least for outcome data) and assessed the risk of bias independently. We would have followed the standard methodological procedures suggested by Cochrane and the Cochrane EPOC Group for assessing risk of bias and analysing the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no eligible studies for this review, either completed or ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no studies assessing the effects of wearing gloves, gowns or masks for contact with MRSA hospitalised patients, or with their immediate environment, on the transmission of MRSA to patients, hospital staff, patients' caregivers or visitors. This absence of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect for these interventions. The effects of gloves, gowns and masks in these circumstances have yet to be determined by rigorous experimental studies, such as cluster-randomised trials involving multiple wards or hospitals, or interrupted time series studies.

Long-Term Control of Endemic Hospital-Wide Methicillin-ResistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA): The Impact of Targeted Active Surveillance for MRSA in Patients and Healthcare Workers

Objective.

To evaluate the long-term impact of successive interventions on rates of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) colonization or infection and MRSA bacteremia in an endemic hospital-wide situation.

Design.

Quasi-experimental, interrupted time-series analysis. The impact of the interventions was analyzed by use of segmented regression. Representative MRSA isolates were typed by use of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis.

Setting.

A 950-bed teaching hospital in Seville, Spain.

Patients.

All patients admitted to the hospital during the period from 1995 through 2008.

Methods.

Three successive interventions were studied: (1) contact precautions, with no active surveillance for MRSA; (2) targeted active surveillance for MRSA in patients and healthcare workers in specific wards, prioritized according to clinical epidemiology data; and (3) targeted active surveillance for MRSA in patients admitted from other medical centers.

Results.

Neither the preintervention rate of MRSA colonization or infection (0.56 cases per 1,000 patient-days [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.49-0.62 cases per 1,000 patient-days]) nor the slope for the rate of MRSA colonization or infection changed significantly after the first intervention. The rate decreased significantly to 0.28 cases per 1,000 patient-days (95% CI, 0.17-0.40 cases per 1,000 patient-days) after the second intervention and to 0.07 cases per 1,000 patient-days (95% CI, 0.06-0.08 cases per 1,000 patient-days) after the third intervention, and the rate remained at a similar level for 8 years. The MRSA bacteremia rate decreased by 80%, whereas the rate of bacteremia due to methicillin-susceptibleS. aureusdid not change. Eighty-three percent of the MRSA isolates identified were clonally related. All MRSA isolates obtained from healthcare workers were clonally related to those recovered from patients who were in their care.

Conclusion.

Our data indicate that long-term control of endemic MRSA is feasible in tertiary care centers. The use of targeted active surveillance for MRSA in patients and healthcare workers in specific wards (identified by means of analysis of clinical epidemiology data) and the use of decolonization were key to the success of the program.

The impact of enhanced cleaning within the intensive care unit on contamination of the near-patient environment with hospital pathogens: a randomized crossover study in critical care units in two hospitals

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of enhanced cleaning of the near-patient environment on the isolation of hospital pathogens from the bed area and staff hands.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized crossover study over the course of 1 yr.

SETTING

Intensive care units at two teaching hospitals.

PATIENTS

There were 1252 patients staying during enhanced cleaning and 1331 staying during standard cleaning.

INTERVENTIONS

In each of six 2-month periods, one unit was randomly selected for additional twice-daily enhanced cleaning of hand contact surfaces.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Agar contact samples were taken at five sites around randomly selected bed areas, from staff hands, and from communal sites three times daily for 12 bed days per week. Patients admitted in the year commencing April 2007 were analyzed for hospital-acquired colonization and infection. Over the course of 1152 bed days, 20,736 samples were collected. Detection of environmental methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus per bed-area day was reduced during enhanced cleaning phases from 82 of 561 (14.6%) to 51 of 559 (9.1%) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.86; p = .006). Other targeted pathogens (Acinetobacter baumannii, extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and Clostridium difficile) were rarely detected. Subgroup analyses showed reduced methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus contamination on doctors' hands during enhanced cleaning (3 of 425; 0.7% vs. 11 of 423; 2.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.95; p = .025) and a trend to reduction on nurses' hands (16 of 1647; 1.0% vs. 28 of 1694; 1.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-1.08; p = .077). All 1252 critical care patients staying during enhanced and 1,331 during standard cleaning were included, but no significant effect on patient methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus acquisition was observed (adjusted odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.65; p = .93).

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced cleaning reduced environmental contamination and hand carriage, but no significant effect was observed on patient acquisition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ISRCTN. Identifier: 06298448. http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/.

Do guidelines for the prevention and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus make a difference?

Many countries have national guidelines for the prevention and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) that are similar in approach. The evidence base for many recommendations is variable, and often, in the drafting of such guidelines, the evidence is either not analysed or not specifically reviewed. Guidelines usually recommend screening and early detection, hand hygiene, patient isolation or cohorting, and decolonization. Although many components of a prevention and control programme appear to be self-evident, e.g. patient isolation, the scientific base underpinning these is poor, and scientifically rigorous studies are required. Nonetheless, where measures, based on what evidence there is and on common sense, are implemented, and where the necessary resources are provided, MRSA can be controlled. In The Netherlands and in other low-prevalence countries, these measures have largely kept healthcare facilities MRSA-free. In MRSA-endemic countries, such as Spain and Ireland, national guidelines are often not fully implemented, owing to apparently inadequate resources or a lack of will. However, recent studies from France and Australia demonstrate what is possible in high-prevalence countries when best practice is effectively implemented, with potentially major benefits for patients, the respective health services, and society.

In vivo killing of Staphylococcus aureus using a light-activated antimicrobial agent

Background

The widespread problem of antibiotic resistance in pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus has prompted the search for new antimicrobial approaches. In this study we report for the first time the use of a light-activated antimicrobial agent, methylene blue, to kill an epidemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (EMRSA-16) strain in two mouse wound models.

Results

Following irradiation of wounds with 360 J/cm² of laser light (670 nm) in the presence of 100 μg/ml of methylene blue, a 25-fold reduction in the number of viable EMRSA was seen. This was independent of the increase in temperature of the wounds associated with the treatment. Histological examination of the wounds revealed no difference between the photodynamic therapy (PDT)-treated wounds and the untreated wounds, all of which showed the same degree of inflammatory infiltration at 24 hours.

Conclusion

The results of this study demonstrate that PDT is effective at reducing the total number of viable EMRSA in a wound. This approach has promise as a means of treating wound infections caused by antibiotic-resistant microbes as well as for the elimination of such organisms from carriage sites.

An outbreak in an intensive care unit of a strain of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus sequence type 239 associated with an increased rate of vascular access device-related bacteremia

BACKGROUND

Patients in intensive care units are at high risk of developing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia. We report an epidemiological and bacterial genomic analysis of a 2-year outbreak in an intensive care unit of a variant of MRSA sequence type 239 (hereafter designated TW).

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted to compare risk factors for MRSA bacteremia in patients who acquired TW versus patients who acquired non-TW strains of MRSA. Genetic analysis of TW was performed using multilocus sequence typing and microarray analysis.

RESULTS

Patients who acquired TW were more likely than patients who acquired non-TW strains of MRSA to have MRSA isolated from blood samples (47% vs. 13%; P<.001) and to have MRSA-positive vascular access device-sample cultures (59% vs. 26%; P<.001), but less likely to have MRSA isolated from screening swab samples (30% vs. 71%; P<.001). This increased rate of TW bacteremia was confined to the first week after acquisition of TW infection. Using Cox regression analysis, the adjusted hazard ratio for bacteremia with TW was 4.5 times that of non-TW strains of MRSA (95% confidence interval, 2.25-9.00; P<.001). Microarray analysis revealed that TW had accumulated all detectable mobile genetic elements that were variably expressed by other epidemic strains of MRSA sequence type 239 in the United Kingdom.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first report to provide direct evidence that strains of MRSA can differ in their ability to cause bacteremia. Further genetic and in vitro analysis of the TW strain may provide insight into the mechanism of vascular access device-related bacteremia in the intensive care unit environment.

Medidas de control de Staphylococcus aureus resistente a meticilina en hospitales españoles. Encuesta del proyecto SARM 2003 GEIH/GEMARA/REIPI

INTRODUCTION

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is one of the main nosocomial pathogens. The incidence of MRSA infections is increasing in Spain. The objective of this study was to investigate the measures used for surveillance and control of MRSA in a sample of Spanish hospitals.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey was done, including data on the incidence of MRSA infection/colonization for 2002, the microbiological methods used to study S. aureus susceptibility, and the use of control measures based on published guidelines.

RESULTS

Sixty-one hospitals with a catchment population of 16 million inhabitants participated. Automatic methods were most frequently used for routine susceptibility testing. The median incidence was 0.45 cases/100 admissions; this data could be obtained from only 70% of the centers. In 59%, the incidence was indicative of high transmission. Isolation precautions were indicated for all patients with MRSA in 95% of the hospitals; screening of carriers among patients was performed in 18% to 72%, depending on the circumstances. Health care workers from at least one unit had been screened in 52% of the hospitals during 2002. Mupirocin was used for the treatment of 90% of colonized persons.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable variation in the application of control measures in the hospitals surveyed. National guidelines with recommendations for MRSA control are needed in Spain.

Nosocomial infection and multidrug-resistant bacteria surveillance in intensive care units: a survey in France

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate nosocomial infection (NI) surveillance strategies in French ICUs and to identify similar patterns defining subsets within which comparisons can be made.

DESIGN

A questionnaire was sent to all French ICUs, and a random sample of nonresponders was interviewed.

PARTICIPANTS

Three hundred ninety-five responder ICUs (69%) in France.

RESULTS

In 282 ICUs (71%), a dedicated ICU staff member was responsible for infection control activities. The microbiology laboratory was usually in the hospital (90%) and computerized (94%) but issued regular hospital microbiology records in only 48% of cases. Patients receiving mechanical ventilation, central venous catheterization, and urinary catheterization were 90%, 79%, and 60%, respectively. Patients were screened for carriage of multidrug-resistant bacteria on admission and during the stay in 70% and 60% of ICUs, respectively, most often targeting MRSA. Quantitative cultures were used to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in 90% of ICUs, including distal specimens in 80% and bronchoscopy specimens in 60%. Quantitative central venous catheter (CVC)-segment cultures were used in 70% of ICUs. All CVCs were cultured routinely in 53% of the ICUs. Despite wide variations in infection control and surveillance strategies, multiple correspondence analysis identified 13 key points (4 structural variables and 9 variables concerning the diagnosis of VAP, the surveillance and diagnosis of catheter-related and urinary tract infections, and the mode of screening of MRSA carriers) that categorize the variability of French ICUs' approaches to NIs.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed profound differences in NI surveillance strategies across ICUs, indicating a need for caution when using NI surveillance data for comparisons and benchmarking.

Isolation of patients in single rooms or cohorts to reduce spread of MRSA in intensive-care units: prospective two-centre study

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired infection due to meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is common within intensive-care units. Single room or cohort isolation of infected or colonised patients is used to reduce spread, but its benefit over and above other contact precautions is not known. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of moving versus not moving infected or colonised patients in intensive-care units to prevent transmission of MRSA.

METHODS

We undertook a prospective 1-year study in the intensive-care units of two teaching hospitals. Admission and weekly screens were used to ascertain the incidence of MRSA colonisation. In the middle 6 months, MRSA-positive patients were not moved to a single room or cohort nursed unless they were carrying other multiresistant or notifiable pathogens. Standard precautions were practised throughout. Hand hygiene was encouraged and compliance audited.

FINDINGS

Patients' characteristics and MRSA acquisition rates were similar in the periods when patients were moved and not moved. The crude (unadjusted) Cox proportional-hazards model showed no evidence of increased transmission during the non-move phase (0.73 [95% CI 0.49-1.10], p=0.94 one-sided). There were no changes in transmission of any particular strain of MRSA nor in handwashing frequency between management phases.

INTERPRETATION

Moving MRSA-positive patients into single rooms or cohorted bays does not reduce crossinfection. Because transfer and isolation of critically ill patients in single rooms carries potential risks, our findings suggest that re-evaluation of isolation policies is required in intensive-care units where MRSA is endemic, and that more effective means of preventing spread of MRSA in such settings need to be found.

Antibiotic-treated infections in intensive care patients in the UK

The purpose of this audit was to study reasons for starting antibiotic therapy, duration of antibiotic treatment, reasons for changing antibiotics and the agreement between clinical suspicion and microbiological results in intensive care practice. We conducted a multicentre observational audit of 316 patients. Data on demographic details, site, treatment and nature of infection were collected. The median duration of antibiotic therapy was 7 days. Infections were community-acquired in 160 patients (55%). Antibiotics were started on clinical suspicion of infection in 237 patients (75%). Pulmonary infections were the most common, representing 52% of all proven infections. Gram-negative organisms were the most common cause of proven infections (n = 90 (50%)). The antibiotic spectrum was narrowed in light of microbiology results in 78 patients (43%) and changed due to antibiotic resistance in 38 patients (21%). We conclude that the mean duration of treatment contrasts with existing published guidelines, highlighting the need for further studies on duration and efficacy of treatment in intensive care.

Pro/con clinical debate: isolation precautions for all intensive care unit patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization are essential

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are an increasingly common problem in intensive care units (ICUs), and they are capable of impacting on patient outcome, the ICU's budget and bed availability. This issue, coupled with recent outbreaks of illnesses that pose a direct risk to ICU staff (such as SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome]), has led to renewed emphasis on infection control measures and practitioners in the ICU. Infection control measures frequently cause clinicians to practice in a more time consuming way. As a result it is not surprising that ensuring compliance with these measures is not always easy, particularly when their benefit is not immediately obvious. In this issue of Critical Care, two experts face off over the need to isolate patients infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.